For the Love of Life

The core beliefs of humanism center around valuing human life and promoting the betterment of the human condition. Many of the ethical dilemmas we try to solve with reason revolve around certain ideas about life. Let's start with these three ideas...

Life is finite. It has a beginning and an ending. We tend to view the taking of human life as the most abhorrent of acts, and much of our social structure is designed to prevent violence against each other and the ending of human life. But we are not so well-structured as a society when it comes to how we value the beginning of human life.

Life is imperfect. Life is wonderfully complex, and each living creature is unique. To expect perfection of any living creature - whether it be genetically or behaviorally - is to set oneself up for disappointment. Yet we are growing more intolerant of imperfections as we design new ways to anticipate and treat them.

Life exists on a continuum. We tend to value human life above animal and plant life. And, right or wrong, we have succeeded in extending the idea of a continuum into our definitions of human life. We suggest that the rights that we give to an individual be proportionate to the degree of self-awareness and cognitive capacity that the individual possesses. This becomes problematic, however, when the potential for self-awareness and full cognitive capacity is denied.

The point of this blog is to figure out what I believe, not to tell you what to believe, so examine what follows for yourself to determine what you agree or disagree with, and why. Understand that this is a beginning, that this subject is complex, and that thinking (mine and yours) will evolve and change with experience and exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking.

For now my gut reaction starts here...We cannot fully value human life if we do not value the process by which it begins, and life begins at conception. I would not be here today if you had removed any moment of my spatiotemporal existence up to and including the moment of my conception. It does not matter that, while a fetus, zygote, or embryo, I was not a physically or cognitively mature human being. What matters is that these states are necessary precursor states to my being here now. I have a hard time understanding why, if you would not kill me now, you would feel it okay to kill me while I was a zygote, fetus, or embryo. I am not now, and never have been, your property.

If this is what I truly believe, then my actions must reflect it. I must make responsible decisions about sex and birth control, and if I fail to take reasonable precautions against creating a life, then I bear the responsibility for the life that has been created. As there is almost always the possibility that sex can create a life, I've found it easier to make responsible decisions about sex when I ask the following question... Would I be proud to say that I am carrying that man's child? (Yes, this invokes social factors associated with relationship status, and suggests that the father is relevant and necessary to the identity of the child. These should be important considerations.)

But what if I were raped and became pregnant? What would I do then? Fortunately I have never been in that position, and I wouldn't presume to dictate to any woman what she should do if she found herself in that situation. Years ago I was a proponent of a one-choice model - If you made the choice to have sex, then you don't get to make the choice to end the life you created; if you didn't make the choice to have sex, then you still have a choice in dealing with what resulted from that act. One person should never be forced to give her life, in full or in part, for another. Perhaps if the rape resulted in conception, and that pregnancy were voluntarily terminated, the rapist should be accountable for something more than rape and closer to murder, as he forced the creation and subsequent termination of a life.

If I have chosen to create a life, or have failed to take reasonable precautions against creating a life, am I obligated to accept whatever life results from that act of creation? Am I obligated to accept a child who may have genetic differences so severe as to make raising her a significantly more expensive and time-consuming proposition? Am I obligated to accept a child, the time and expense of whose care would significantly detract from that which I am able to provide to my other children?

I would suggest that the resolution to those questions comes not from how we define the zygote/embryo/fetus as life (or not), but from a broader examination of the ethics of valuing human life. What sacrifice can one person reasonably be expected to make for another? What obligations does a parent have to a child? What right or responsibility do we have to ensure that another does not suffer, even if it means ending their life prematurely to stop future suffering? What about groups of people who might face eugenic elimination as our technology advances our ability to predict certain outcomes? What obligation to we have to ensure that the full range of human diversity is allowed expression?

Obviously none of this will be solved in a single blog (or a single post). But it's worthwhile to engage yourself in a dialogue that challenges you to identify and defend your values.

"You could respond that all of this is hypothetical or contingent, but I would suggest that we should think deeply about such decisions before we are ever in a position to make them (or to influence others who might make them). Emerging technologies may put much greater power into the hands of individuals, so it’s not unreasonable for you to imagine what you would do in certain situations and carefully consider the ethics you might apply." (q)